Which of the following must be proven to establish causation in a negligence case?

To establish causation in a negligence case, it is essential to demonstrate that the officer's actions directly resulted in damages. Causation encompasses two key elements: cause-in-fact, which shows that the injury would not have happened "but for" the officer's actions, and proximate cause, which assesses whether the officer's actions were closely enough related to the injury. In this context, proving that the officer's conduct led to specific damages is crucial to link their actions to the resulting harm.

The other options do not pertain to the necessary elements of causation. Intent to harm is tied to intentional torts rather than negligence. Evidence of prior misconduct could be relevant in other areas but does not establish a direct link between current actions and damages. Lastly, aligning conduct with industry standards might provide context for evaluating the officer's behavior but does not itself demonstrate that the actions caused the harm in question.